WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1
26 November 2007 
 (07-5207) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Dedicated Session  
 
 
 
WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES  
 
Compilation paper prepared by the Secretariat  
 
Revision  
 
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .4 
II. MANDATE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK...........................................................................5  
A. PARAGRAPH 35 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION – WT/MIN(01)/ DEC/1 
(20 NOVEMBER 2001)..................................................................................................................5  
B. PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES FRAMEWORK AND 
PROCEDURES – WT/L/447  (1 MARCH 2002) .................................................................................5  
C. PARAGRAPH 1.D OF THE 1 AUGUST :  2004  GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION - WT/L/579 .................6  
D. PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION - WT/MIN(05)/ DEC 
(18 DECEMBER 2005) ..................................................................................................................6  
D.1 REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE SECTION ON NAMA IN 
THE HONG  KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ............................................................................6  
D.2 REFERENCES TO SMALL EC ONOMIES IN THE SERVICES – ANNEX C OF THE HONG KONG 
MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ........................................................................................................7  
E. OTHER TEXTS OFTEN CITED BY  SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE 1 AUGUST 2004  GENERAL 
COUNCIL DECISION – ANNEX B NAMA FRAMEWORK – WT/L/579  (2 AUGUST  2004)....................7  
III. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE - SPECIAL SESSION ..............................................8  
A. CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT .....................................................................................................8  
1. Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4 (1 August 2007)...........................8  
B. HISTORIC EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................12  
1. Overview of Small Economies' Positions on the Agriculture Negotiations – 
JOB(05)/161 (27 July 2005)....................................................................................................1 2 
2. Proposal by the Small, Vulnerable Econom ies on Market Access in Agriculture – 
TN/AG/GEN/11 (11 November 2005)....................................................................................13  
3. Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs  – Room Document (4 May 2006)..........................13  
4. Report by the Chairman to the TNC – TN/AG/21 (28 November 2005), also 
Annex A of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration ...........................................................14  
5. Contribution by the SVEs on the Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs – 
JOB(06)/164 (31 May 2006)....................................................................................................14  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  6.
 Chairman's Revised Consolidated Ref erence Paper on Possible Modalities on 
Market Access – (9 June 2006) ..............................................................................................15  
7. Revised Consolidated Reference Pape r on Modalities on Market Access – 
Contribution on the Treatment of SV Es – JOB(06)/196 (19 June 2006) ...........................16  
8. Draft Possible Modalities on Agriculture – TN/AG/W/3 (12 July 2006)............................16  
9. Submission on the Treatment of Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) – 
JOB(07)/47 (11 April 2007) ....................................................................................................1 6 
10. Communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Special 
Session - Second Instalment (25 May 2007)..........................................................................18  
IV. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS FOR 
NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.................................................................................19  
A. CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT AND LATEST PROPOSAL .............................................................19  
1. Draft NAMA Modalities – JOB(07)/126 (17 July 2007) ......................................................19  
2. Submission by Small, Vulnerable Economies on Modalities to Apply in Non 
Agriculture Market Access - JOB(07)/154 (17 October 2007) ...........................................20  
B. HISTORIC EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................22  
1. Market Access for Non-Agricultural Produc ts - Treatment of Small, Vulnerable 
Economies in the NAMA Negotiations - TN/MA/W/66 (11 November 2005)....................22  
2. Progress Report by the Chairman to  the Trade Negotiations Committee – 
TN/MA/16 (24 November 2005), also Annex B of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration .................................................................................................................... ..........22
 
3. NAMA – Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Criteria and 
Treatment of SVEs, submission by the SVEs – (1 May 2006).............................................23  
4. Small and Vulnerable Economies - Text Proposal for the Chairman of NAMA by the Delegations of Costa Rica and Ur uguay – Room Document (30 May 2006)..........24
 
5. NAMA 11 - Non-Paper – Small Vulnerable Economies – (30 May 2006)..........................24  
6. Proposal on Small, Vulnerable Economies by Norway – Room Document 
(6 June 2006).................................................................................................................. ..........25  
7. Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economi es in the NAMA Negotiations, Proposal 
by the SVEs – (15 June 2006).................................................................................................25  
8. Towards NAMA Modalities – TN/MA/W/80 (19 July 2006)...............................................26  
V. COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERV ICES SPECIAL SESSION.........................................28  
1. Services – Information Note (November 2005) ....................................................................28  
VI. WORKING PARTY ON DOME STIC REGULATION .....................................................29  
A. CURRENT STATE OF PLAY ..........................................................................................................29  
B. PROPOSAL BY THE SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES ..............................................................29  
1. Services - Trade-Related Concerns of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  - JOB(06)/66/Rev.2 (10 July 2006).....................29  
VII. NEGOTIATING GROU P ON RULES.................................................................................32  
1. WTO Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines – Architecture on Fisheries Subsidies 
Disciplines - TN/RL/GEN/57/Re v.2 (13 September 2005)...................................................32   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2. Special and Differential Treatment in the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations:  
Views of the Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - TN/RL/W/210/Rev.2 (22 June 2007)................................................................................................................. .........32
 
VIII.  COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES.....................36  
A. DECISION ............................................................................................................................... ....36  
1. Decision of the General Council of 27 July 2007 (WT/L/691).............................................36  
IX. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON TRADE FACILITATION .................................................43  
1. Regional Approaches to Trade Facilitation:  Enquiry Points - 
TN/TF/W/129/Rev.1 (21 July 2006).......................................................................................43  
X. AID FOR TRADE TASK FORCE........................................................................................45  
1. Aid for Trade - WT/AFT/W/18 (15 June 2006)....................................................................45  
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  I. INTRODUCTION 
 Paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration
1 instructs the CTD in Dedicated 
Session to monitor progress of the small economies' proposals in the negotiating and other bodies.  At 
its Fifteenth Dedicated Session on 20 July 2006, Me mbers requested that the Secretariat prepare a 
note that would help the CTD in Dedicated Session to monitor work currently underway in WTO and 
in the negotiating groups.  The Secretariat's pape r is based on the compilation paper that had been 
prepared by a group of small economies2 and incorporates the reports by the various Chairs of the 
negotiating groups and the relevant excerpts from the minutes of the meetings where the small economy proposals had been discussed.   
 The present document attempts to reflect the cu rrent state of play of the small economies' 
issues discussed so far in the negotiating and othe r bodies.  This document has been prepared under 
the Secretariat's own responsibility and does not prejudice the right of any Member to raise other concerns or views related to the Work Programme on Small Economies. 
                                                     
 
1 WT/MIN(05)/DEC. 
2 WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  II. MANDATE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A. PARAGRAPH 35 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION – WT /MIN(01)/ DEC/1 
(20 NOVEMBER 2001) 
We agree to a work programme, under the auspices of the General Council, to 
examine issues relating to the trade of sma ll economies.  The objective of this work is 
to frame responses to the trade-related issu es identified for the fuller integration of 
small, vulnerable economies into the multila teral trading system, and not to create a 
sub-category of WTO Members.  The General Council shall review the work programme and make recommendations for action to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference. 
B. 
PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES FRAMEWORK AND 
PROCEDURES – WT/L/447  (1 MARCH 2002) 
In pursuance of this mandate, the Work Programme shall be undertaken in 
accordance with the following framework and procedures:   
(a) The Work Programme shall remain under the overall responsibility of 
the General Council. 
(b) The General Council shall have the Work Programme on Small 
Economies (WPSE) as a standing item on its agenda. 
(c) The objective of this work is to frame responses to the trade-related 
issues identified for the fuller integra tion of small, vulnerable economies 
into the multilateral trading system. 
(d) The General Council shall instruct the CTD to have a programme of 
work on small economies which will be  conducted in dedicated sessions 
of the CTD.   
(e) The CTD shall report regularly to  the General Council on the progress 
of work in the dedicated sessions. 
(f) The Chairperson of the regular CTD shall also be the Chair for the 
dedicated sessions of the CTD. 
(g) The dedicated sessions of the CTD shall have an agreed calendar of 
meetings to complete the work under its mandate. 
(h) The CTD will hold informal meetings as necessary with a view to 
assisting the formal process in the dedicated sessions of the CTD. 
(i) In accordance with the outcome of  the programme of work in the CTD, 
the General Council shall, as appropriate, direct relevant subsidiary bodies to frame responses to the trade -related issues identified by the 
CTD with a view to making recomme ndations for action to the Fifth 
Session of the Ministerial Conference as mandated.  This does not 
prejudice the right of Members to submit for consideration proposals 
relating to the concerns of small economies to the relevant WTO bodies. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  (j) As and when necessary, the dedicated sessions of the CTD will work in 
collaboration with relevant subsidiary bodies. 
(k) Members are urged to make their own contributions to the work of the 
CTD under its programme of work.  The  General Council shall instruct 
the WTO Secretariat to provide rel evant information and factual 
analysis, inter alia, 
(i) on the impact of WTO rules on Small Economies; 
(ii) on the constraints faced by Small Economies as well as their 
shortfalls in institutional and adm inistrative capacities, including 
in the area of human resources; 
(iii) on the effects of Trade Liberalization on Small Economies. 
The CTD will also request information and analysis from other agencies 
and bodies that carry out work on small economies. 
 
C. 
PARAGRAPH 1.D OF THE 1 AUGUST :  2004  GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION - WT/L/579 
The trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable 
economies into the multilateral trading system, should also be addressed, without creating a sub-category of Members, as par t of a work programme, as mandated in 
paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
D. 
PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION - WT /MIN(05)/ DEC 
(18 DECEMBER 2005) 
We reaffirm our commitment to the Work Programme on Small Economies and urge 
Members to adopt specific measures that w ould facilitate the fuller integration of 
small, vulnerable economies into the mu ltilateral trading system, without creating a 
sub-category of WTO Members.  We take note of the report of the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session on the Work Programme on Small 
Economies to the General Council and agree to the recommendations on future work.  
We instruct the Committee on Trade  and Development, under the overall 
responsibility of the General Council, to con tinue the work in the Dedicated Session 
and to monitor progress of the small ec onomies' proposals in the negotiating and 
other bodies, with the aim of providing res ponses to the trade-related issues of small 
economies as soon as possible but no later than 31 December 2006.  We instruct the 
General Council to report on progress and ac tion taken, together with any further 
recommendations as appropriate, to our next Session.  
D.1 
REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES  IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE SECTION ON NAMA IN THE 
HONG  KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION  
 PARAGRAPH 21 
 
We note the concerns raised by small,  vulnerable economies, and instruct the 
Negotiating Group to establish ways to  provide flexibilities for these Members 
without creating a sub-category of WTO Members.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  D.2 REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE SERVICES – ANNEX C OF THE HONG KONG 
MINISTERIAL DECLARATION  
PARAGRAPH 8 
 
Due consideration shall be given to pr oposals on trade-related concerns of small 
economies. 
E. OTHER TEXTS OFTEN CITED BY SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE 1 AUGUST 2004  GENERAL COUNCIL 
DECISION – ANNEX B NAMA FRAMEWORK – WT/L/579  (2 AUGUST  2004) 
 PARAGRAPH 6 
 
We furthermore agree that, as an exception, participants with a binding coverage of 
non-agricultural tariff lines of less than [35] per cent would be exempt from making tariff reductions through the formula.  Inste ad, we expect them to bind [100] per cent 
of non-agricultural tariff lines at an average  level that does not exceed the overall 
average of bound tariffs for all developing countries after full implementation of 
current concessions. 
PARAGRAPH 8  
 
We agree that developing-country partici pants shall have longer implementation 
periods for tariff reductions.  In addition, th ey shall be given the following flexibility: 
(a) applying less than formula cuts to up to [10] per cent of the tariff lines 
provided that the cuts are no less than  half the formula cuts and that these 
tariff lines do not exceed [10] per cent of the total value of a Member's 
imports;  or 
(b) keeping, as an exception, tariff lines unbound, or not applying formula cuts 
for up to [5] per cent of tariff lines pr ovided they do not exceed [5] per cent of 
the total value of a Member's imports. 
PARAGRAPH 9  
 
We agree that least-developed country partic ipants shall not be required to apply the 
formula nor participate in the sectorial approach, however, as part of their contribution to this round of negotiations, they are expected  to substantially increase 
their level of binding commitments. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
  III. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE - SPECIAL SESSION 
A. 
CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT  
1. Revised Draft Modalities for Agricu lture - TN/AG/W/4 (1 August 2007) 
II. MARKET ACCESS 
A. TIERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS  
52. Small and vulnerable economies3 will, in respect of each tier specified above for 
developing countries, be entitled to  moderate the two-thirds cut by a further [10] ad valorem 
points in each band.  Should strict application of this formula result in an overall average cut 
higher than [24] per cent, the Member concerne d would be entitled to apply lesser reductions 
at its discretion, to keep w ithin such an average level. 
53. Where a small and vulnerable Member (o r a Member in the supplementary list 
specified in footnote 3 below) has ceiling bindings or homogeneous low bindings and 
application of the approach specified above would still place an unsustainable adjustment 
burden upon it, the Member concerned shall not  be required to make a tiered reduction but 
would be subject only to the overall average reduction. 
H. SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
134. For the purposes of this Agreement, this  term applies to Members with economies 
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.  
135. Developed country Members a nd developing country Members in a position to do so 
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to 
Members with small, vulnerable economies. 
136. More specific provisions are to be found in relevant sections of this document. 
ANNEX C 
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
 
1. The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous 
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004 (TN/MA/S/18).  Individual Members' data were  extracted from the United Nations Comtrade 
database on 6 June 2007.  World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports 
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006.  This time period 
has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustme nt has been applied to world exports by 
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall 
                                                     
 
3 The Members concerned are those that meet the cr iteria set out in paragraph 134 and are listed in 
Annex C.  As is made clear in the Framework, SVEs are not meant to create any new category of Members.  
Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be deemed to be eligible for this treatment, 
should they choose to avail themselves of it, desp ite not being Members of the SVE group of countries per se  
given that this treatment could be deemed to be broadly comparably appropriate: Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they meet the crite ria in paragraph 137).  These latter 
Members would also have freedom to opt for varying bands for the tiers.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  results4.  The country averages are calculated on the basis of the years for which data are 
available.  
2. A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one whose average share for the period 
1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world agricultural trade does not 
exceed 0.40 per cent. 
3. The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as 
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those Members for which no data are available. 
                                                     
 
4 Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of 
reporters in Comtrade.  World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to 
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and ali gning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total 
imports  Intra-trade of the 25 member  States of the European Communities was then subtracted from the totals.  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 10  Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Worlda 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Albania 0.019 0.008 0.029 0.050 0.008 0.087 0.017 0.008 0.026 
Antigua and Barbuda 0.004 0.001 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.020 0.004 0.001 0.006 
Armenia 0.015 0.010 0.019 0.040 0.018 0.060 0.013 0.010 0.016 
Barbados 0.013 0.005 0.020 0.037 0.022 0.050 0.011 0.004 0.019 
Belize 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.023 0.029 0.017 0.004 0.001 0.007 
Bolivia 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.102 0.143 0.065 0.028 0.025 0.030 
Botswana 0.057 0.061 0.053 0.075 0.030 0.116 0.056 0.065 0.048 
Brunei Darussalam 0.050 0.078 0.025 0.029 0.000 0.056 0.053 0.086 0.023 
Cameroon 0.036 0.038 0.035 0.112 0.140 0.087 0.032 0.032 0.032 
Cuba 0.063 0.034 0.089 0.240 0.223 0.256 0.052 0.022 0.080 
Dominica 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.005 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.002 
Dominican Rep. 0.068 0.018 0.113 0.154 0.115 0.189 0.063 0.011 0.111 
Ecuador 0.110 0.112 0.108 0.326 0.515 0.154 0.098 0.087 0.107 
El Salvador 0.051 0.026 0.075 0.173 0.136 0.206 0.044 0.018 0.068 
Fiji 0.014 0.010 0.018 0.047 0.055 0.040 0.012 0.007 0.017 
FYR Macedonia 0.033 0.026 0.039 0.076 0.069 0.083 0.027 0.024 0.030 
Gabon 0.031 0.046 0.017 0.026 0.004 0.046 0.032 0.051 0.015 
Georgia 0.014 0.009 0.020 0.052 0.044 0.060 0.012 0.006 0.018 
Ghana 0.057 0.044 0.067 0.221 0.302 0.144 0.047 0.027 0.063 
Grenada 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.004 
Guatemala 0.086 0.053 0.116 0.319 0.416 0.231 0.072 0.030 0.110 
Guyana 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.037 0.052 0.024 0.008 0.007 0.010 
Honduras 0.041 0.026 0.056 0.190 0.223 0.160 0.032 0.013 0.049 
Jamaica 0.044 0.024 0.063 0.114 0.091 0.136 0.040 0.020 0.059 
Jordan 0.079 0.052 0.104 0.198 0.120 0.269 0.071 0.049 0.092 
Kenya 0.052 0.037 0.065 0.215 0.314 0.126 0.041 0.019 0.062  
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1
 Page 11 Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Kyrgyzstan 0.011 0.010 0.012 0.029 0.032 0.026 0.010 0.009 0.011 
Macao, China 0.049 0.049 0.048 0.055 0.013 0.093 0.050 0.053 0.046 
Mauritius 0.037 0.032 0.041 0.096 0.102 0.090 0.034 0.028 0.038 
Moldova 0.018 0.013 0.022 0.089 0.132 0.051 0.013 0.006 0.021 
Mongolia 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.025 0.017 0.033 0.012 0.011 0.013 
Namibia 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.072 0.073 0.070 0.028 0.028 0.027 
Nicaragua 0.023 0.012 0.034 0.102 0.129 0.079 0.018 0.004 0.031 
Panama 0.038 0.016 0.059 0.105 0.091 0.114 0.035 0.011 0.056 
Papua New Guinea 0.032 0.042 0.023 0.070 0.086 0.056 0.030 0.040 0.022 
Paraguay 0.032 0.022 0.042 0.173 0.280 0.077 0.023 0.005 0.040 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.003 
Saint Lucia 0.004 0.001 0.006 0.016 0.009 0.022 0.003 0.001 0.005 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.011 0.009 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.003 
Sri Lanka 0.102 0.092 0.112 0.249 0.284 0.217 0.095 0.081 0.107 
Suriname 0.009 0.009 0.011 0.017 0.007 0.027 0.009 0.009 0.010 
Swaziland 0.019 0.018 0.019 0.068 0.082 0.056 0.015 0.014 0.016 
Trinidad and Tobago 0.086 0.102 0.071 0.086 0.072 0.098 0.088 0.107 0.071 
Uruguay 0.047 0.044 0.050 0.209 0.333 0.096 0.037 0.025 0.048 
Zimbabwe 0.037 0.037 0.039 0.151 0.280 0.067 0.030 0.021 0.037 
 
Source: All data are from the United Nations Comtrade da tabase except for World totals, which are WTO estimates. 
a  Excludes intra-trade of the Europ ean Communities and significant re-exports. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
  B. 
HISTORIC EVOLUTION  
1. Overview of Small Economies' Positions on the Agriculture Negotiations – JOB(05)/161 
(27 July 2005) 
4. Taking into account documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/12 and 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/13/Rev.1, the small, vulnera ble economies would like to highlight the 
following fundamental considerations: 
 
(a) The agricultural sector in small, vulne rable economies plays a key role in the 
attainment of their socio-economic deve lopment goals, in particular with 
respect to food security, rural development, exports and employment.  The 
volatility of international prices for pr oducts exported by small, vulnerable 
economies constitutes an important factor  of high vulnerability for some 
small, vulnerable economies.  In this  context, it is important for small 
economies that these issues be addressed  satisfactorily in the agriculture 
negotiations; 
(b) Small, vulnerable economies have an in significant level of participation in 
the multilateral trading system and a minimal share of total world trade.  Furthermore, these economies are constrained by low levels of competitiveness.  Issues related to market access for small economies' 
products should be addressed satisfactorily so that these economies can participate meaningfully in the multilate ral trading system in accordance with 
their level of development; 
(c) Small, vulnerable economie s have critical concerns in the market access 
pillar of the agriculture negotiations , including special and differential 
treatment and flexibilities and economic development broadly.  For most 
small economies, tariffs are the only tool at their disposal to protect their 
agricultural sectors.  It is therefore crucial that the tariff reduction formula be 
flexible enough to accommodate the con cerns of small vulnerable economies; 
(d) Bearing in mind the key contribution that agriculture makes to the food 
security and rural development of small, vulnerable economies, these countries consider that the provisions of Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) are important for the development of their 
agricultural sectors.  Accordingly, Sp ecial Products shall be exempted from 
tariff reductions and from any commitment s on TRQs.  Special Products shall 
also have access to the SSM;   
(e) The issue of maintenance of current de  minimis support levels for developing 
countries is of major importance to small, vulnerable economies, especially 
since they do not have access to the aggregate measure of support (AMS).  
We wish to emphasize that there is no justification for the reduction of 
de minimis support by developing countries;  
(f) The concerns of small, vulnerable economies shall be taken into account in 
all the provisions of special and differential treatment which are provided in the Doha mandate.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  2. Proposal by the Small, Vulnerable Econom ies on Market Access in Agriculture – 
TN/AG/GEN/11 (11 November 2005) 
Proponents :  Barbados, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Re public, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, P apua New Guinea, Par aguay and Trinidad and 
Tobago. 
 
 8. Small, vulnerable economies (SVEs), with the exception of LDCs, whose average 
share of world merchandise exports over th e period 1995-2004 do not exceed 0.10 per cent, 
will make a contribution to the reform proces s in agriculture according to the following 
provisions:  
 
• Small, vulnerable economies will undertake linear cuts not exceeding 15 per cent, 
with a minimum of 10 per cent per tariff line, from the bound rate.  No further commitments will be expected from the small, vulnerable economies on the basis of modalities that may be agreed with respect to other elements under the market access 
pillar. 
• No tariff capping shall apply to the small, vulnerable economies. 
• Modalities shall provide for substantial impr ovement in market access for products of 
export interest to small, vulnerable economies. 
• Small, vulnerable economies will designate  Special Products based on their food 
security, livelihood security and rural development needs. 
• Special Products of small, vulnerable ec onomies will be exempted from tariff 
reductions and tariff rate quota commitments. 
• All agricultural tariff lines will be eligib le for the Special Safeguard Mechanism 
(SSM).  SPs of small, vulnerable economi es will have automatic access to the SSM. 
• The small, vulnerable economies insist that the SSM shall contemplate price and 
volume-based triggers.  Remedy measures shoul d be effective and flexible to respond 
to the needs of the small, vulnerable economies.  
 
3. Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs – Room Document (4 May 2006) 
 3. The criteria for defining small, vulnerable economies and possible modalities 
available to them, or from which they might benefit, do not apply only to the agriculture 
negotiations.  This note, however, can only a ddress the agriculture specific elements and is 
without prejudice to proposals and discussions in other negotiating bodies.  However, some elements of these other proposals and discussions may offer some clarification on specific issues relating to SVEs, such as the criteria that might be relevant for defining a Member as a having a "small, vulnerable economy". 
   Proposed modalities for market access  
 4. The negotiations have benefited from a specific proposal
5 in the market access area 
that outlines possible provisions the SVEs propose should apply to them.  These provisions could be summarised as: 
 
• Tariff reduction formula :  linear cuts not exceeding 15 per cent, with a minimum of 
10 per cent per tariff line and no tariff cap; 
• Special Safeguard Mechanism  (SSM):  automatic access for all agricultural tariff 
lines; 
                                                     
 
5 See Attachment 1 to this reference paper;   see also JOB(05)/161 (27 July 2005). WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 14  
 
  • Special Products :  self-designation based on food security, livelihood security and 
rural development needs;  exemption fr om tariff reductions and tariff rate quota 
commitments;  and 
• Offensive interests :  Substantial improvement in market access for products of export 
interest. 
 Issues to be addressed 
7. In view of the level of uncertainty su rrounding the distinct elements of the general 
provisions for market access and related special and differential treatment, a focused response 
to the specific proposals made by the SVEs remain s elusive.  However, if there are to be any 
provisions for SVEs, they will have to be part of the modalities.  Although some SVEs 
Members have supported the ACP comprehensive proposal – notably as regards the proposed tariff cuts for developing countries, which they see as a good basis for accommodating their 
concerns – there has been little convergence among Members regarding the core tariff 
reduction formula, Sensitive Products and the sp ecial and differential treatment provisions (of 
which, Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism are key elements). 
8. It is encouraging to note, however, that practically all of the individual elements 
covered by the SVE proposal have already been the subject of intensive discussions in various 
formats under the Special Session of the Committe e on Agriculture.  Furthermore, each of 
these topics is being addressed in the various Chairman's Reference Papers which are being prepared or revised.  The direct involvement of SV Es at this stage is crucial in order to ensure 
that their specific views on the various market access parameters, as well as on meaningful special and differential treatment, are adequate ly incorporated.  They, and other Members, 
will also need to assess what additional provisions, if any, may be needed in addition to those 
available under special and differential treatment. 
9. Furthermore, market access is not entirely de-linked from the other two pillars of 
negotiations.  As noted by SVEs themselves,  market access conditions to international 
markets will be effectively improved only if trade-distorting measures affecting agricultural 
trade are also corrected and addressed.  To a large extent, through the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration and in the recent negotiations, it would appear th at the political will and support 
exists already for some improvements:  the final date for the elimination of all forms of export 
subsidies has been agreed;  and there h as been some convergence on reductions in 
trade-distorting domestic support.  These topics ar e definitely on the agenda for reform and I 
have addressed some of them through earlier Reference Papers. 
10. All these elements must be brought together in the right way, i.e. in a horizontal (no 
sub-category of WTO Members), inclusive,  transparent and participatory process. 
4. Report by the Chairman to the TNC – TN/AG/21 (28 November 2005), also Annex A of 
the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration  
26. In the case of small and vulnerable econom ies, a concrete proposal has been made 
recently.  It has not yet been subject to consultation. 
5. Contribution by the SVEs on the Chairman's  Reference Paper on SVEs – JOB(06)/164 
(31 May 2006) 
Criteria for defining SVEs 
 
4. In paragraph 3 of the reference paper, th e Chairman notes that the criteria to define 
SVEs are being discussed in other negotiating bodi es.  It is worth noting that the SVEs have  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  recently presented a submission in the Negotia ting Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access 
(NAMA6) proposing that countries whose average share for the period 1999-2004 (a) of 
world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world ag ricultural trade does not exceed 0.40 per cent 
should be identified as SVEs. 
 
5. The SVEs would wish to highlight that the vulnerability that characterizes them affects their trade performance in the non-agricultu ral and agricultural sectors.  In this sense, 
the same criteria should prevail in both negotia ting areas and we fully endorse the use of the 
criteria submitted in the NAMA Negotiating Group for the agriculture negotiations. 
 
 What specific provisions should be envisaged ? 
 
8. The level of ambition, which the SVEs are seeking is spelt out in paragraph 8 of 
TN/AG/GEN/11.  In this sense, given the cu rrent stage of the agriculture negotiations, 
provisions applicable to SVEs should be based on the following principles: 
 
• SVEs will contribute less than other devel oping countries in terms of tariff reduction. 
• SPs designated by SVEs should be exem pted from tariff reduction, capping, 
tariff-quota commitments.  They will also have  the right to have recourse to a Special 
Safeguard Mechanism based on impor t quantity and price triggers. 
• Modalities shall provide for substantial impr ovement in market access for products of 
export interest to SVEs. 
6. Chairman's Revised Consolidated Reference  Paper on Possible Modalities on Market 
Access – (9 June 2006) 
 [SMALL AND VULNERABLE ECONOMIES] 
 38. Members with economies defined as small,  vulnerable in [ ] may reduce bound duties 
by [ ] less than those that would otherwise ha ve been required under paragraph 4 above.  Any 
product designated as a Special Product under para graphs 16 to 19 above by a Member with a 
small, vulnerable economy shall not be requi red to [undertake reductions in bound duties,] 
[or] [increase bound tariff quotas] [o r] [be subject to a tariff cap.] 
 39. [Members shall provide enhanced impr ovements in market access for products of 
export interest to Members with  small, vulnerable economies.] 
                                                     
 
6 Circulated as a room document on 10 May 2006. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 16  
 
  7. Revised Consolidated Reference Paper on Modalities on Market Access – Contribution 
on the Treatment of SVEs – JOB(06)/196 (19 June 2006) 
 I. 
SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
  38. Countries whose average share for the period 1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise 
trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 
0.10 per cent and (c) of world agricultural tr ade does not exceed 0.40 per cent shall reduce 
bound duties by [X
7] percentage points less than would otherwise have been required under 
paragraph 4 above. 
39. In accordance with the Hong Kong Mi nisterial Declaration and the July 2004 
Decision, SVEs will have the right to self-designate  at least [   ] per cent of tariff lines as SPs 
based on criteria of food security, livelihood securi ty and rural development needs.  SVEs 
shall not be required to undertake reductions  in bound duties, increase bound tariff quotas nor 
be subject to a tariff cap with  regards to these tariff lines. 
40. Members shall provide enhanced improve ments in market access for products of 
export interest to SVEs. 
8. Draft Possible Modalities on Agriculture – TN/AG/W/3 (12 July 2006)  
  [ I .  S MALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
 
47. Members with economies that, in the period [1999] to [2004], had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no more than [0.16] per cent, (b) world trade 
in non-agricultural products of no more than [0.10] per cent and (c) world trade in 
agricultural products of no more than [0. 40] per cent shall have the right to reduce 
bound duties by [ ] less than those that would otherwise have been required under paragraph 4 above.   
48. Any Member meeting the criteria in pa ragraph 47 shall have the right to self-
designate at least [ ] per cent of tariff lines as Special Products based on criteria of 
food security, livelihood security and rural de velopment needs.  Such Members shall 
not be required to undertake reductions in bound duties, increase bound tariff quotas or be subject to a tariff cap] on these products.] 
49. [Developed country] Members shall provide enhanced improvements in 
market access for products of export inter est to Members with small, vulnerable 
economies.] 
9. Submission on the Treatment of Small Vu lnerable Economies (SVEs) – JOB(07)/47 
(11 April 2007) 
6. In view of their specific situation, SV Es need enhanced Special and Differential 
Treatment (SDT).  This paper builds upon two elements of the previous SVEs submissions 
on:  (a) tariff reduction through the tiered fo rmula;  and (b) Special Products (SPs). 
7. New commitments undertaken by SVEs sha ll reflect consideration of their specific 
situation and their development needs.  Fo r the reasons enumerated above, SVEs shall 
contribute less than other developing countries in terms of tariff reduction. 
                                                     
 
7 This figure will be determined in the light of emerging convergence in respect of the level of ambition 
of the overall mark et access package.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  8. An examination of the tariff schedules and tariff profile of SVE Members will reveal 
that tariff reduction commitments based on a tiered formula will require disproportionate 
efforts from SVEs because: 
• Some have homogeneous low bindings.  Reduction commitments are likely to 
affect those products that are highly important for their development needs.  
Applying the formula cuts is likely to re duce the applied rates of such products. 
• Some have ceiling bindings and/or a high percentage of their tariff lines may fall 
in the highest tiers of the tiered formul a.  This would require them to undertake 
greater efforts in terms of average tari ff reduction and tariff reduction per tariff 
line when compared with the average reduction for developing countries used during the Uruguay Round (24 per cent) and assessed through the lens of the 
proportionality principle.  
 
9. SPs self-designated by SVEs shall be ex empted from tariff reduction, tariff capping 
and tariff-quota commitments.  Provisions on SPs  are important for the development of the 
agricultural sectors in SVEs, bearing in mind th e key contribution that agriculture makes to 
their food security, livelihood security and rural development. 
10. SVEs fully support the view that SPs s hould be selected and designated based on the 
food and livelihood security and rural developmen t needs of developing countries, guided by 
the illustrative list of indicators submitted by  the G-33.  The right to self-designate any 
product as SP shall not be questioned at any stage of the negotiating processes, including the verification of the schedules of members. 
11. SVEs are of the view that the concessi ons made in the framework of free trade 
agreements (FTAs) are part of a very specific and particular balance between the rights and 
obligations of the Members involved in the FTA.  There shall be no requirement that 
multilateral WTO rights and  obligations, resu lting from the Doha negotiations, including the 
self-designation of SPs, be contingent on such FTA concessions. 
12. SVEs also believe that SPs shall cover at  least 20 per cent of the total number of tariff 
lines of a particular Member and that this lim ited percentage of tariff lines should be treated 
according to the following three layers of commitments: 
• At least 50 per cent of these tariff lines will be exempted from tariff reductions.  
For those SVEs characterized by special circumstances
8, an additional 15 per cent 
of the tariff lines designated as Special Pr oducts will not be subject to any tariff 
reduction commitment; 
• 25 per cent of tariff lines will be subject to a reduction of 5 per cent;  and 
• The remaining tariff lines, other than tho se categorized in the two sub-paragraphs 
above, will be subject to a reduction of not more than 10 per cent. 
13. An outcome that reflects the aspirations of SVEs would contribute to enhancing their 
participation in the multilateral trading syst em, in accordance with their development, 
economic, financial and trade needs.  These enhanced flexibilities will not have any significant impact on world markets, taking into  account the small size of their markets, the 
                                                     
 
8 Special circumstances include situ ations where a developing country Member:  (a) had bound at least 
25 per cent of its total tariff lines at a maximum import duty of 80 per cent at the start of the implementation 
period;  (b) had undertaken ceiling binding commitments under the Uruguay Round;  (c) has predominantly low 
income or resource poor producers;  or (d) has any ot her structural difficulties in its agriculture sector. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 18  
 
  fact that many of these countries are already highly open and are net food-importing 
countries. 
10. Communication from the Chairman of the Co mmittee on Agriculture, Special Session - 
Second Instalment (25 May 2007) 
17. From the mandate it is clear that the m odalities should address the fuller integration 
of small, vulnerable economies into the multila teral trading system but without creating a 
sub-category of Members.  In the proposals made by the group of small, vulnerable 
economies, three distinct elements have been raised: the definition of what is a small, 
vulnerable economy; how their concerns re lating to improving market access may be 
addressed; and how their export interests may be addressed.   
18. In order to define what is a small, vulne rable economy, there is a proposal from the 
group which states that they are Members w ith economies that, in the period 1999 to 2004, 
had an average share of world merchandise trade of 0.16 per cent or less and world trade in 
non agricultural products of 0.1 per cent or l ess and world trade in agricultural products of 
0.4 per cent or less.  In the absence of any contra ry view I will take that this definition is 
acceptable.  I would also assume that in submitting their draft Schedules any Member that 
claims that its economy meets these criteria  would provide verifiable supporting data. 
19. The group of small, vulnerable economies proposed that their export interests should 
be addressed by a modality that would re quire all Members to provide enhanced 
improvements in market access for products of ex port interest to SVEs.  I do not recall any 
delegation disagreeing with this proposal.   
20. While the proposal made by the SVE group is independent of proposals on Special 
Products generally, I would note that it does follow ve ry closely that of the G-33.  However, at 
this stage there is no consensus among Member s on the designation and treatment of Special 
Products.  Therefore, I feel that, at this stag e, there is little I can usefully add beyond noting 
that, as regards my own comments on special products, I would have envisaged that some 
form of additional flexibility – whether in te rms of number and/or treatment – under Special 
Products – reflecting the potentiality of dispropor tionate impact – would appear to have been 
the most appropriate means for addressing the sp ecific import concerns of small, vulnerable 
economies.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  IV. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL 
PRODUCTS 
A. CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT AND LATEST PROPOSAL  
1. Draft NAMA Modalities – JOB(07)/126 (17 July 2007) 
Chairman’s Introduction to the Draft NAMA Modalities  
  
 Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs)  
 
32. In my July 2006 report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TN/MA/W/80), I 
proposed that consensus had been reached on the trigger for access to  the flexibilities for 
SVEs.  Specifically, I noted that Members had ag reed to abandon the search for benchmarks 
of vulnerability and had accepted a single e ligibility criterion based on the value of NAMA 
trade, that is less than 0.1 percent of  world trade in non-agricultural products. 
33. On the question of the treatment of SVEs , while Members remained divided - then 
and now - on the architecture of the flexib ility (a formula tariff reduction with expanded 
flexibilities or a target average tariff reducti on as proposed by the proponents), they widely 
agreed that the central question was the level of  contribution to be made by these Members to 
the Round. 
34. As regards the architecture of the modality, I have proposed the tariff average 
approach, in three tiers based on average bound tariffs, and including a minimum line-by-line 
tariff reduction.  I believe that this arch itecture is appropriate  because it facilitates 
differentiated treatment of a very diverse gr oup of Members.  A tiered approach would 
provide for some degree of harmonization of tariffs among them, with the Members with the 
highest tariffs making the greatest reduction.  Moreover, based on my consultations, I believe 
that this architecture is the more likely to find consensus, provided the level of contribution to the Round is satisfactory.   
35. With respect to that contribution, I have proposed target tariff averages of 14, 18 and 
22 per cent, together with a minimum line-by-line tariff reduction of 10 per cent on 95 per cent of tariff lines.  This would ensure a minimum contribution to the market access 
outcome in the Round, while providing a very si gnificant flexibility in how that contribution 
is made.  SVEs would reduce their average tariffs in reasonable proportion to other 
developing countries but would be  permitted greater flexibility in how to structure their tariff 
schedules.  This approach is consistent with  the development needs of small, vulnerable 
economies. 
36. Special consideration of Fiji is proposed, in view of it’s low leve l of binding coverage 
and the fact that 100 percent of tariffs lines are to be bound by SVEs. 
Draft NAMA Modalities 
Small, Vulnerable Economies
 
 
13. With the exception of developed Members, those Members having a share of less than 0.1 percent of world NAMA trade for th e reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best 
available data as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following modality of tariff reduction instead of the formula modality wh ich is contained in pa ragraphs 5, 6 and 7 
above.  
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 20  
 
  (a) Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:
9  
 
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an 
average level that does not exceed an overall average of 22 per cent; 
 
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their non-
agricultural tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall 
average of 18 per cent;  and  
(iii) below 30 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an average 
level that does not exceed an overall average 14 per cent.  
   Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (i).  
 
 In addition, 95 per cent of all non-agri cultural tariff lines shall be subject to a 
minimum cut of 10 per cent. 
 
(b) All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into force of 
the DDA results at initial bound rates.   
(c) The initial bound rates shall be establishe d as follows: for bound tariff lines the existing 
bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality 
will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.    
(d) The overall binding target average sha ll be made effective at the end of the 
implementation period as follows:  the tariff re ductions shall be impl emented in 9 equal 
rate reductions.  The first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year 
following the entry into force of the DDA r esults and each successive reduction shall be 
made effective on 1 January of each of the following years.     
(e) All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem  basis.  Existing bindings on a non 
ad valorem  basis shall be converted to ad valorem  equivalents on the basis of  the 
methodology outlined in document  TN/MA/20.  
 
2. Submission by Small, Vulnerable Economies on  Modalities to Apply in Non Agriculture 
Market Access - JOB(07)/154 (17 October 2007)
10 11 
PRINCIPLES  
 1. SVEs have signalled their willingness to cont ribute to the current Doha Development 
Round, consistent with their ability so to do, and taking into account their trade, economic and social realities.  SVEs should neither be penali zed for their liberalization decisions taken thus 
far, nor be required to undertake  reductions that are disproportionate to the marginal level of 
benefits likely to accrue from this Round.   
2. SVEs have verbally, and in written submissi ons, articulated the principles which have 
guided their proposals. These principles eman ate from work in the WTO Committee on Trade 
and Development over the years as well as from paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial 
                                                     
 
9 See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.   
10 Bolivia did not accompany this proposal. 
11 This proposal is without prejudi ce to the rights of those Recently Acceded Members (RAMs) that are 
Small, Vulnerable Economies, and the proposals submitte d by that Group to specifica lly address their concerns.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Declaration, the July 2004 Framework Agreement and the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration.  
MODALITIES APPLICABLE TO SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
 
3. The current modalities proposed for SVEs do not conform to the principle of less than 
full reciprocity in reduction commitments as these modalities require higher levels of 
contributions from SVEs, in comparison to ot her developing countries, and even some 
developed  countries.  These results are inconsistent  with the various mandates in this Doha 
Development Round on the flexibilities to be accord ed to developing countries in general, and 
the enhanced flexibilities to be provided to  SVEs, in particular, and are therefore 
unacceptable.  
4. The SVEs have, in the past, submitted proposals based on 5 bands, taking into 
account the tariff dispersion of the proponents.  It should be noted that the Chair’s proposal 
effectively restricts the SVEs proponents to two (2) bands, with the 3rd band accommodating 
SVEs RAMs. However, consistent with the c onstructive engagement that has characterized 
the approach of SVEs thus far; the Group is  willing to work within the 3 band approach 
outlined by the Chair, so long as such bands a dhere to the principles outlined in the various 
mandates, including the principle of less than full reciprocity.  Acceptance of a 3 band approach is contingent on adequate flexibiliti es afforded to SVEs, including the requirement 
for maximum average reductions that are less th an those of developed countries and which are 
consistent with the economic, social, trade and development needs of SVEs. 
5. The flexibility to exempt, at their discretion, 10% of tariff lines from reduction 
commitments is also an integral aspect of the flexibilities required by SVEs. This flexibility is 
independent of the maximum tari ff reduction required of SVEs.  
6. The specific tariff reduction modalities to appl y to SVEs are outlined in Annex 1 of 
this paper. 
Annex 1 
 
Revised Textual Proposal on the Provisions A pplicable to Small, Vulnerable Economies
 
 
(a) Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:  
 
(i) at or above 50 percent shall bind their non-agricultural tariff lines at an 
average level of [32] percent.  Where th is average results in reductions that 
are greater than [40] percent, the Member concerned would be entitled to 
apply lesser reductions, at its discreti on, in keeping with this maximum 
average reduction of [40] percent. 
 (ii) at or above 30 percent but below 50 at percent shall bind their non-
agricultural tariff lines at an average le vel of [28] percent.  Where this 
average results in reductions that are gr eater than [30] percent, the Member 
concerned would be entitle d to apply lesser reductions , at its discretion, in 
keeping with this maximum average reduction of [30] percent. 
 
 Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (i).  
 
 In addition, 90 percent of all non-agricultural tariff lines shall be subject to a 
minimum cut of 5 percent. 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 22  
 
  (b) SVEs with a binding coverage of 50 pe rcent or less shall have the flexibility to 
maintain [10%] of tariff lines unbound.  
 
(c) The implementation period for Small, Vu lnerable Economies shall be [2] years longer 
than that for other developing countries. 
 
B. 
HISTORIC EVOLUTION  
1. Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Treatment of Small, Vulnerable 
Economies in the NAMA Negotiations - TN/MA/W/66 (11 November 2005) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Boliv ia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala,  Honduras, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New 
Guinea, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.  
9. As their contribution to the NAMA nego tiating process, small, vulnerable economies 
propose that developing countries, not covered in paragraph 6 and paragraph 9 of Annex B, 
and whose average share in total world merc handise exports does not exceed 0.10 per cent 
over the period 1995-2004,  will be expected to: 
(a) Make tariff reductions not exceeding 15 pe r cent, but with minimum cuts of 
10 per cent on individual lines and with no more than half the cuts at the lowest level of this range.  This contribution will ensure a significant 
reduction of small, vulnerable econom ies' tariff averages as well as a 
reduction in individual tariff lines. 
(b) On the treatment of unbound tariffs, small, vulnerable economies whose 
binding coverage is more then 90 per cent commit themselves to the objective of full tariff binding as an outcome of the NAMA negotiations.  
However, newly bound tariff lines will not be subject to reductions through 
the formula during these negotiations.  Small, vulnerable economies are open to discuss a possible target rate at which these tariffs should be bound or a maximum rate at which to bind these lines. 
10. Small, vulnerable economies firmly belie ve that only tariff reductions compatible 
with their capacity to sustain trade reforms, as spelt out in this paper, are likely to efficiently 
discharge the Doha mandate.  In this context,  small, vulnerable economies will continue to 
have access to flexibilities such as those outlined in paragraph 8 of Annex B. 
2. Progress Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee – TN/MA/16 
(24 November 2005), also Annex B of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration  
19. A paper was submitted recently by a group of Members which proposes inter alia 
lesser and linear cuts to Members identified by a criterion using trade share.  While some 
developing and developed Members were sympat hetic to the situation of such Members, 
concerns were expressed with respect to the thr eshold used to establish eligibility, and also the 
treatment envisaged.  Other developing Members expressed serious reservations about this proposal which in their view appeared to be creating a new category of developing Members, and to be further diluting the ambition of the NAMA negotiations.  The sponsors of this 
proposal stressed that the small, vulnerable economies had characteristics which warranted 
special treatment.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  20. This is an issue on which there is a ser ious divergence of opinion among developing 
Members.  This subject will need to be deba ted further.  Discussions may be facilitated 
through additional statistical analysis. 
3. NAMA – Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Criteria and Treatment of 
SVEs, submission by the SVEs – (1 May 2006) 
 1. Following the submission of two pro posals to the Negotiating Group on Market 
Access12, and in pursuance of paragraph 21 of th e Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration in 
which Ministers agreed to "establish ways to provide flexibilities" for the small, vulnerable 
economies, the proponents have held a series of  consultations with a number of delegations 
over the past weeks regarding the criteria and tr eatment of the small, vulnerable economies in 
the NAMA and agriculture modalities. 
2. Members of the NAMA Negotiating Group have shown an un derstanding of the 
concerns raised by the small, vulnerable ec onomies and have demonstrated a willingness to 
engage constructively to find solutions that are capable of integrating these economies into 
the multilateral trading system, consistent with the wishes of the Ministers. 
3. A number of issues were raised by dele gations participating in the consultations 
regarding the criteria and treatment of small, vulnerable economies as well as the contribution 
these economies are capable of making to trade liberalisation.  
7. The criteria  for the identification of potential developing country beneficiaries of 
this proposal in the NAMA negotiations, excluding LDC's, countries in transition and paragraph 6 countries, would apply to the remaining countries: 
• whose share of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent;  and 
• whose share of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent;  and 
• whose share of world agricultural trade does not exceed 0.40 per cent
13. 
 8. The treatment  proposed for all developing c ountries who meet the above criteria 
would be that these countries would not be subject to formula cuts, but would bind 100 per cent of their non-agricultural tariff lines at  average levels reflected in the following 
tiers and bands: 
 
Current Bound 
Average % Average % 
Cut Final Bound 
Average % 
0 – 30 10 0 – 27 
31 – 40 15 26 – 34 
41 – 50 20 33 – 40 
51 - 60 25 38 – 45 
61 - 30 43 - 
 
                                                      
12 JOB(05)/165 of 29 July 2005;  and TN/MA/W/66 of 11 November 2005. 
13 Data Source:  WTO, 1999 – 2004. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 24  
 
   9. Beneficiaries with less than 50 per cent binding coverage shall be allowed to keep 
[5 per cent] of their lines unbound while binding the remaining [95 per cent] at an average of [  ]. 
  10. The implementation of the tariff reduc tion commitments should be staged over a 
longer period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalisation 
process and not jeopardise the industrial and so cial development prospects of the small, 
vulnerable economies. 
 
4. Small and Vulnerable Economies - Text Proposal for the Chairman of NAMA by the 
Delegations of Costa Rica and Uruguay – Room Document (30 May 2006) 
Criteria
 
Regarding trade participation of a small a nd vulnerable economy in global trade, the 
identifying criteria should be as follows:  
• Developing countries whose share of world NAMA trade  (exp-imp) does not exceed a 
unique percentage to be agreed as a threshold. 
- WTO Secretariat statistics should be used in  order to determine the specific situation 
of these countries in this area of negotiation.  
- The period of reference to be used should be from year 1999 to year 2004 given that 
year 1999 is already included as the reference period in Annex B. 
 
Treatment  
Once the objective criteria and period of refe rence have been determined, the negotiating 
group should then proceed to negotiate the tr eatment.  Such treatment should take into 
account the following principles:  
• SVEs contribution should be significantly higher than the contribution to be agreed for 
paragraph 6 countries and LDCs.  
• Treatment should be compatible with the NAMA Framework and the Hong Kong 
Declaration. 
 
Proposal
 
The treatment proposed for small and vulnerable economies is as follows: 
 
• Developing countries that have been identifie d by the above mentioned criteria to be 
small and vulnerable economies will benefit from a unique [X] additional percentage 
points to the figure currently in bracket s in paragraph 8(a) or paragraph 8(b)14. 
 
5. NAMA 11 - Non-Paper – Small Vulnerable Economies – (30 May 2006) 
 4. For the above reasons, it is the view of the NAMA 1115 that a solution based on the 
paragraph 8, with appropriate modulation, will provide the much needed additional protection 
for the sensitivities and specific needs of th e SVEs.  In document TN/MA/W/66, the SVEs 
have pointed out that the flexibilities "as curren tly crafted in paragraph 8 are of very limited 
scope ... in addition, the thresholds and conditionalities limit the usefulness...".  The 
NAMA 11 agrees that these limitations have to be overcome and ther eby the following could 
be considered as an appropriate solution: 
                                                      
14 The additional [X] percentage points will depend on  the share of NA MA trade to be agreed in the 
selection criteria.  These [X] percentage points would be higher if the threshold of NAMA trade is lower, and vice versa.  
15 Grouping includes Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, South Africa, 
Tunisia and Venezuela.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
   
i. Once the number in brackets of paragr aph 8(a) and (b) has been agreed for 
developing countries, additional flexibility  beyond that shall be identified for 
SVEs;  further relaxation of the trade li mitation, in particular, is an avenue 
worth exploring, considering the econo mic situation of SVEs, with a longer 
implementation period;  or 
 ii. The SVEs could be permitted access to  paragraph 8(a) and (b) cumulatively, 
with a longer implementation period.  
 6. Proposal on Small, Vulnerable Economies by Norway – Room Document (6 June 2006) 
For the purposes of the NAMA negotiations, we propose that developing Members 
whose share of total NAMA trade (imports plus exports) does not exceed [0.1] per cent for the 
time period of 1999-2004 as contained in documen t TN/MA/S/18 shall be considered a small, 
vulnerable economy pursuant to paragraph 21 of  the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  
In the event that NAMA trade data is not av ailable for a Member for any of the years 
in this time period, that Member's share of  total NAMA trade shall be calculated by the 
Secretariat using the best available data.  
We propose that the developing Members who meet the above criteria will bind 
[100] per cent of their non agricultural tariffs.  The average bound tariff level of a Member being considered a small, vulnerable econom y will not exceed [X] per cent after the 
implementation period.  In meeting this re quirement, beneficiaries would make minimum 
reductions of [Y] per cent on individual tariff lines.
16 
7. Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economies in  the NAMA Negotiations, Proposal by the 
SVEs – (15 June 2006) 
4. The following principles have guided the revision of the SVEs treatment  proposal: 
 
• SVEs should not be penalised for the pr ogressive liberalization decisions they 
made during the Uruguay Round, nor should they be asked to accept cuts in this Round greater than Members who achieve greater benefits from the 
Round. 
 
• The dispersion in proponent's current bound averages (32.6 to 73.0) demands 
variable cuts to variable final bound averages. 
 
• The treatment  being sought by the small, vulnerable economies should be 
compatible with the terms and me chanisms established in the NAMA 
Framework (Annex B of the July 2004 decision by the General Council) and 
further mandated in paragraph 21 of th e Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
 
• This proposal builds on the treatment pr oposed in the Norwegian submission, 
which did receive some favourable responses. 
 
                                                     
 
16 The values of X and Y should be set at appropriat e levels with the objective to ensure that the SVEs 
make a contribution that goes beyond the contribution to be made by the Members covered by paragraph 6. 
The values of X and Y are related.  The more stri ngent the average requirement, the less stringent will 
be the line by line reduction requirement, and vice versa.  Mathematically, this implies that the lower X is the 
lower Y will be.  The exact levels of these variables will be determined by Members. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 26  
 
  • Full binding at any one bound average is not easily compared with less than 
full binding at the same bound average. 
 
• There is no justification for all SVEs binding at a lower average than other 
members whose economies are at similar levels of development. 
 
5. Based on data from the World Trade Report 2005, SVE proponents (excluding 
paragraph 6 and LDC countries) have average a pplied rates of 7.6 per cent while paragraph 6 
countries have an average of 13.8 per cent and LDCs 13.4 per cent.  SVEs effort to welcome 
imports is therefore clear. 
 Proposal
:  
 6. The treatment  proposed for small, vulnerable economies would be that these 
countries would not be subject to formula cuts, but would bind 100 per cent of their 
non-agricultural tariff lines at average leve ls reflected in the following bands: 
 
Current Bound 
Average % Average % 
Cut Expected Final 
Bound Average 
% 
≤ 37 [….] [….] 
38 – 47 [….] [….] 
48 – 57 [….] [….] 
≥ 58  [….] [….] 
  
7. Tariff reduction for SVEs shall be on the basis of lo wer tariff cuts for those in the 
lower bands and higher cuts for those in the higher bands  
 
8. In meeting this requirement, benefici aries would make minimum reductions of 
[  ] per cent on a maximum of [  ] per cent of individual tariff lines 
 
9. In the specific case of Fiji with less th an 50 per cent binding coverage, Fiji shall be 
allowed to keep [5 per cent] of their lines unbound while binding the remaining [95 per cent] at an average of [  ]. 
 
10. The implementation of the tariff reducti on commitments should be staged over a 
longer period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalisation 
process and not jeopardise the industrial and so cial development prospects of the small, 
vulnerable economies.  
8. Towards NAMA Modalities – TN/MA/W/80 (19 July 2006) 
 Modalities
17 
  The criteria
 
 
 With the exception of developed countries, Members having a share of NAMA trade (exports 
and imports) of less than [0.1 per cent] of wo rld trade for a reference period of 1999 to 2001, 
                                                      
17 In the reference Paper, there is no text in the modalities concerning the treatment of small economies.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  or best available data, as contained in docu ment TN/MA/S/18 may use the following modality 
for tariff reduction:  
  It is understood that this does not create a sub-category of WTO Members.  
 Chairman's remarks  
 The criteria
 
  There is consensus on the use of this cr iterion to determine eligibility for additional 
flexibilities as a small, vulnerable economy.  
  While recognizing that this benchmark establish es only that an economy is small, in terms of 
its NAMA trade, Members have acknowledged the difficulties of articulating additional 
criteria to establish that economies are also vulnerable and can accept the single criterion. 
 
 The proponents have proposed additional criteri a related to agricultural trade and total goods 
(both NAMA and agriculture) trade.  Many Me mbers oppose the use of such criteria, arguing 
that this would create a new sub-category of Members.  I would note, in this regard, that it is important for many Members that the treatme nt of small, vulnerable economies in these 
negotiations does not create a precedent for future negotiations. 
 
 Finally, it was noted that this criterion should be understood as only a "trigger" for eligibility 
– that is, the criterion alone should not define the group of countries that will have access to these flexibilities.  Members will recall that th e proponents do not include all countries with 
trade below this threshold. 
 
 The treatment
 
  There is no consensus on the treatment of small, vulnerable economies.    There are two basic options on the table:  a pa ragraph 6-type solution or a paragraph 8-type 
solution.  The first option
 has two variations, one put forw ard by the SVEs proponents and the 
second by Norway.  The SVE proponents have s uggested a banded approach while Norway's 
proposal is more similar in structure to paragra ph 6, with a single target tariff average.  The 
second option  is to use a paragraph 8-type solu tion, which would envisage increasing the 
flexibilities in paragraph 8.  There are different  permutations of this option including adding 
percentage points to the existing numbers in paragraph 8; removing the trade limitation, 
combining sub-paragraph (a) and (b), and by extending the implementation period. 
  Unfortunately, I am unable to provide much guidance on this issue.  I would note that one 
factor which has made this discussion difficult is the diverse tariff profiles of the SVE proponents. Beyond this, I can only repeat my view that a satisfactor y contribution from these 
Members can be achieved using either the paragr aph 8 or paragraph 6 approach.  The central 
question, therefore, is how great a contribution is required of these Members. 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 28  
 
  V. COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SE RVICES SPECIAL SESSION 
1. Services – Information Note (November 2005) 
Proponents
:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, 
Nicaragua, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadi nes and Trinidad and 
Tobago. 
 
The two-track process involving the CTD and negotiating groups has therefore 
emerged as the process whereby the objective of framing responses to the trade-related issues 
identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading 
system is being pursued. 
Small Economies have already and will conti nue to demonstrate their engagement to 
the services negotiations including through th e tabling of initial and revised offers. 
Taking the above into consideration, issues of concern to small, vulnerable economies 
should be addressed satisfactorily in the service s negotiations in order for these economies to 
participate meaningfully in the multilateral trad ing system in accordance with their level of 
development, market share, vulnerabilities and economic size and structure, without creating 
a subcategory of WTO Members.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  VI. WORKING PARTY ON DOMESTIC REGULATION 
A. CURRENT STATE OF PLAY  
The proposal by the small, vulnerable economi es was taken into account in the Chairman's 
Draft Disciplines on Domestic Regulation - Room Document (18 April 2007). 
B. PROPOSAL BY THE SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
1. Services - Trade-Related Concerns of Sma ll, Vulnerable Economies in the Working 
Party on Domestic Regulation - JOB(06)/66/Rev.2 (10 July 2006) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, 
Nicaragua, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadi nes and Trinidad and 
Tobago. 
 
Small, vulnerable economies r ecommend that the following elements be included in any 
future disciplines on domestic regulation in services.  
III. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF SMALL, 
VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES  
 
(i) These disciplines shall not affect nor limit a Member's right to regulate, and 
shall not prevent or prescribe the development and adoption of future legislation to meet Members' national policy objectives. 
(ii) Developing country Members shall implement the disciplines that require 
adjustment of existing domestic re gulation and/or the adoption of new 
implementation mechanisms to the extent  consistent with their financial, 
administrative and institutional capabili ties and according to their size and 
level of development.  
(iii) Developing country Members shall be accorded adequate  time frames to 
upgrade their legislative, regulatory, administrative and institutional capacity to implement these disciplines.  Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity-building assistance in order to help developing country Members to develop such capacity.  
(iv) These disciplines shall apply to a Member's  measures only to the extent that 
these affect sectors, sub-sectors and modes of supply covered by the 
respective Member’s schedule of commitments. 
(v) These disciplines shall not prevent a Member from establishing measures or 
mechanisms to support the developmen t of regional economic integration. 
B. 
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS  
 
(i) The establishment of qualification requirements by the competent authorities 
shall not be limited to the recognition and verification of specific diplomas, 
test scores or the like, but shall incl ude where possible, the opportunity to 
fulfil such requirements by the recognition and  verification of relevant  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 30  
 
  experience and other education methods for establishing a provider's 
competence to supply the respective services. 
(ii) To ensure that qualification require ments do not in themselves constitute 
barriers to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building assistance in order to help developing country Members and their 
suppliers meet such requirements . 
C. 
QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES  
 
(i) Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in 
themselves to practising the relevant activity.  Developing country Members 
are not precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilised to meet 
national policy objectives. 
(ii) Procedures for the verification of qua lifications shall be limited to those 
required to establish the minimum qua lifications required for supplying the 
service. 
(iii) Members shall ensure that its competent authorities provide for clear and 
practical mechanisms for recognizing as being comparable, education or 
experience obtained, requirements met, or licences or certifications granted in the territory of another Member.  
(iv) To ensure that qualification proce dures do not in themselves constitute 
barriers to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity 
building assistance in order to help developing country Members and their 
suppliers meet such procedures. 
D. 
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS  
 
(i) Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in 
themselves to practising the relevant activity.  Developing country Members 
are not precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilised to meet national policy objectives. 
(ii) To ensure that licensing requirements do not in themselves constitute barriers 
to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building assistance in order to help developing  country Members and their suppliers 
meet such requirements. 
E. 
LICENSING PROCEDURES  
 
(i) Members shall ensure that licensing procedures applied by its competent 
authorities are of minimal complexity and entail minimal costs for meeting 
requirements and fulfilling procedures for entry into export markets.  
Members may grant reduced licensing and other related fees to service providers from developing country Members.  
(ii) To ensure that licensing procedures do not in themselves constitute barriers to 
trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building assistance in order to help developing  country Members and their suppliers 
meet such procedures.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  F. TECHNICAL STANDARDS  
 
(i) Members shall in reasonable time publish a notice in a publication, print or 
electronic, and notify other Members through the Secretariat, of the establishment and application of measures relating to national or international 
technical standards relating to services and service providers. 
(ii) Members shall, where requested, grant other Members, especially developing 
country Members, technical assistance on mutually agreed terms and conditions regarding the establishment of technical standards and participation in the international sta ndardizing bodies in the area of services. 
(iii) As a matter of good practice, Members involved in the development and 
application of measures relating to pl urilateral standards, and standards 
developed and applied by non-governme ntal standardisation bodies should 
ensure maximum transparency of relevant processes for the benefit of other Members.  
G. 
TRANSPARENCY  
 
(i) Members shall ensure access for servi ce suppliers of other Members to 
relevant information on legislative, regulatory and administrative measures 
relating to qualification requirements and procedures, licensing requirements 
and procedures, and technical standards.  
(ii) Members shall ensure the establishment of appropriate, transparent and 
accessible administrative and judicial channels for reviewing decisions. 
Discussions 
 
• Working Party on Domestic Regulation meeting of 27 March 2006, summary of meeting in 
document (JOB(06)/124). 
• Working Party on Domestic Regulation meeti ng of 2 May 2006, summary of meeting in 
document (JOB(06)/157). 
• Working Party on Domestic Regulation meeting of 1-2 June 2006, summary of meeting in 
document (JOB(06)/226). WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 32  
 
  VII. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES 
1. WTO Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines – Architecture on Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines - 
TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 (13 September 2005) 
Proponents
:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Domini can Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana, 
Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevi s, St. Lucia, Solomon Islands and Trinidad 
and Tobago. 
 
16. Small, vulnerable coastal states seek appropr iate special and differential treatment in 
any disciplines on fisheries subsidies.  In this regard the following should not be subject to 
subsidies disciplines: 
(i) Any development assistance to developing coastal states; 
(ii) Assistance to artisanal or small-scale fi sheries.  This requires a consensus on 
the definition of artisanal or small- scale.  Some existing definitions of 
artisanal are based on vessel size in metres, capacity in gross registered tonnage (GRT), or area of operation in te rms of proximity to the shoreline.  
We invite discussions on prevailing definitions used by Member States and 
possible approaches for arriving at a de finition for use in the WTO;  to 
facilitate the discussions, the sponsors of  this paper will share information 
with Members on definitions currently being used in their respective jurisdictions; 
(iii) Access fees in fisheries access agreements;  
(iv) Fiscal Incentives - to facilitate the development of capabilities of small 
vulnerable coastal states. 
 17. We propose that the special and differe ntial treatment provisions of the ASCM for 
Least Developed Countries be maintained in future disciplines.   
 
2. Special and Differential Treatment in the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations
18:  Views of 
the Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - TN/RL/W/210/Rev.2 (22 June 2007) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cu ba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, 
Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius,  Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, and 
Solomon Islands.  
A. 
INTERPRETING THE MINISTERIAL MANDATES ON FISHERIES SUBSIDIES  
The Doha Ministerial Declaration  states that " In the context of these negotiations, 
participants shall also aim to clarify and impr ove WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, 
taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countrie s".   
 
The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration  noted that there is broad agreement that the Group 
should strengthen disciplines on subsidies in the fisheries sector, including through the 
prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and over-
fishing, and call on Participants promptly to undertake fu rther detailed work to, inter alia, 
establish the nature and extent of those discip lines, including transparency and enforceability.  
                                                      
18 This document is an attempt to respond to the call of the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules for 
brainstorming on S&DT issues and does not preclude th e co-sponsors of this document from submitting any 
additional proposals on these matters.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  Appropriate and effective special and diff erential treatment for developing and least-
developed Members should be an integral part of  the fisheries subsidies negotiations, taking 
into account the importance of this sector to  development priorities, poverty reduction, and 
livelihood and food security concerns:   
 
i. The Co-sponsors of this document are of the view that the Ministerial mandates give 
clear instruction and guidance to negotiators  on the issue of Special and Differential 
Treatment (S&DT) for developing and least developed countries.  The Hong Kong Ministerial mandate specifically reflects the need for S&DT to be an integral 
component of the disciplines and recognises that  the fisheries sector is of importance to 
developing countries for a number of socio-economic reasons.   
 
ii. With this in mind, S&DT must be more than an instrument to assist developing 
countries to implement the emerging rules, but must also allow developing countries the opportunity to take advantage of the na tural resources in their maritime space and 
enhance their level of productivity in the area of fisheries.   
 
iii. In this respect S&DT in the fisher ies disciplines must be more than longer 
implementation periods and must instead support the development of the fisheries 
sector in small, vulnerable economies and their potential trade in fisheries products and must not impede their capacity enhancement,  management initiatives, or the processing 
and value added components of the industry in these economies.   
 
iv. The co-sponsors of this proposal recognise the environmental and sustainability effects 
of over fishing and overcapacity and are willing to examine possible disciplines which seek to minimise environmental and ecological damage so long as they are mutually 
supportive of the developmental priorities of small, vulnerable economies and other 
similarly situated developing countries.    
B. 
SHOULD THE PROVISION OF S&DT BE CONDITIONAL ? 
i. The co-sponsors of this document view S& DT as a fundamental principle of all WTO 
Agreements for developing countries and should be accorded without conditions 
attached.  However, the co-sponsors recognise that given the environmental and 
sustainability element of the fisheries ne gotiations, there have been proposals which 
recommend the provision of S&DT on the basis of the individual country either acquiring certain management capacity or on ideas such as status of the fisheries and total allowable catch.  Such conditiona lity would depart from WTO principles for 
according S&DT.   
 
ii. The co-sponsors recognise that there are wi de divergences between the productive and 
trading capacity of developing countries in th e fisheries sector and in the interests of 
sustainability of the marine resources ar e willing to consider carefully crafted 
parameters for S&DT which could meet this objective.  It is clear however that small, 
vulnerable economies, LDCs and some othe r developing countries have had such a 
minimum impact on over fishing and overcapac ity that the proposed restrictions on 
these countries would be unduly punitive and would have the detrimental effect of 
impeding the legitimate growth of their fish eries industry, thereby leading to industry 
regression and stagnation.   
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 34  
 
  iii. An effective management re gime for fisheries is an important component of a country's 
fisheries policy.  However, it must be recognised that not all developing countries, especially the SVEs and the LDCs, have the capacity to enact a management regime which can produce statistics, analyse data or secure its waters from IUU fishing to the 
extent that major fishing nations do.  In li ght of this relatively limited capacity, any 
S&DT conditionality in the area of management regimes should not unduly punish 
these countries for their capacity constraints and should be examined in light of their relatively small productive and trading share of world fisheries.    
iv. The FAO Code of Conduct has been suggested  as an appropriate guideline for countries 
to follow with regards to their manageme nt regimes and the co-sponsors of this 
document concur that it has many important elements.  However as it is a voluntary instrument, the Code of Conduct should not be simply imported into a WTO agreement 
as a binding discipline.  Rather it may be appropriate for developing countries to illustrate the existence of a management plan , either a national management plan or a 
regional management plan.  If the architecture of these plans is found to be significantly 
lacking, the developed countries and interna tional organisations with necessary levels 
of capacity and competence in these areas for improvement should provide technical and financial assistance to these developing  countries to enhance their management 
plans.    
v. Environmental criteria such as the level of exploitation of the fisheries species or the 
level of exploitation in certain waters have  been suggested as conditions for developing 
countries to use certain subsidies.  The co -sponsors are concerned about the accuracy of 
data and unwarranted penalisa tion of small economies as a result of the exploitation of 
fisheries species outside of their waters by larger fleets of countries with greater 
capacity.  The idea of utilising total allowabl e catch as a mechanism is one which must 
also take into account the need to accord flexibility for developing countries as well as 
to safeguard the future growth prospects of their fishing industry.   
 
C. 
ARTISANAL AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES  
i. The co-sponsors of this document recogni se that there has been a great degree of 
discussion on this issue within the negotiating group.  Despite this, there does not 
appear to be any agreement on a definition for these types of fisheries nor how they 
should be treated in the disciplines.    
ii. SVEs have consistently stated that th eir domestic definitions and practical industry 
realities do not recognise a clear distinction between artisanal and small scale fisheries.  
In the majority of cases there is a small profit trade involved in the fisheries and in some cases it is part of a small productive ch ain especially in those countries dependent 
on tourism.  These small fisheries may also  be organised into cooperatives and hence 
there could be an economic component to th e fisheries transactions notwithstanding the 
traditional nature of the fishery and its livelihood and food security aspect.   
 
iii. With this in mind the co-sponsors believe that  any definition of artisanal must take into 
account this economic aspect if it is really to  result in any benefits for the developing 
countries.  It has been recognised however th at a cumulative view of small artisanal and 
small scale fishing fleets may result in certain environmental and sustainability impacts 
and we are willing to further discuss how this impact can be minimised including 
discussions on the assistance which can be provided by relevant international 
organisations and deve loped country members in this area.   
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  iv. Some proposals have sought to use physical  characteristics for determining artisanal 
and small scale fishing and the co-sponsors ar e of the view that any definition based on 
physical attributes should recognise the following  if it is to take the reality of SVEs 
artisanal and small scale fisheries into account:   
 
• Any definition using the length of vessel should take into account the domestic 
definitions used by SVEs,  
• Allowances should be made for a certain level of modernisation such as engine 
horsepower of up to 300hp, the use of navigation and safety equipment and mechanised fishing gear as improved technology becomes available.   
 
v. Socio-economic considerations must also be taken into account if seeking to define 
artisanal and small scale fisheries such as th e importance of the sector to employment, 
food security, poverty reduction and nutrition.    
vi. The co-sponsors recognise that the issue of "small programmes" has al so been raised in 
the negotiations.  Any treatment for "small programmes" should be a component of the 
S&DT for developing countries and its architecture could be based on a level of 
financial amount, the size of the fleet and/or the share of the country in world fisheries trade.   
 
D. 
OTHER AREAS OF S&DT  
i. The co-sponsors believe that there are other areas in the disciplines where S&DT 
should apply.  These include: 
 
1. appropriate flexibilities for industria l and semi-industrial fishing for SVEs 
2. notification requirements 3. length of time to implement the agreement 
4. greater opportunity for consultation before any DSB cases 
5. technical assistance and capacity building for enhancing management 
regimes 
 
The co-sponsors of this document are willing to  continue to work with other members 
to find solutions in these areas which take  into account the trade, development and 
environmental elements of the fisheries negotiations.   
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 36  
 
  VIII.  COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
A. 
DECISION  
1. Decision of the General Council of 27 July 2007 (WT/L/691) 
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND 
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
 
Decision of 27 July 2007  
 
The General Council, 
 
 Having regard  to Articles IV:1 and 2 and IX:1 of th e  Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization ("WTO Agreement") and Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures  ("SCM Agreement ");   
  Recalling that the Members of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
("SCM Committee" or "Committee"), as di rected by the Ministerial Conference
19 have granted, 
pursuant to the procedures set forth in document G/SCM/39, extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement  for the 
elimination of export subsidies, in respect of certain programmes of certain developing country 
Members;    
 
 Noting the proposals submitted by those developi ng country Members to extend the 
procedures contained in G/SCM/39;
20   
  Noting  the terms of paragraph 5 of this Decision;  
 
 Recognizing  the economic, financial and developmen t needs, as well as the capacity and 
administrative constraints, of those Members in  implementing their commitments pursuant to the 
SCM Agreement  in respect of the elimination of export subsidies;   
  On the basis of  the commitment of those Members to eliminate the export subsidies in 
question not later than 31 December 2015, with  no requests for extension beyond those foreseen 
pursuant to this Decision;   
  Decides  to adopt the following procedures.   
 
                                                     
 
19 Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Rel ated Issues and Concerns, (WT/MIN(01)/17), 
paragraph 10.6.   
20 See documents G/SCM/W/535 and G/SCM/W/537 and addenda.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS PURSUANT 
TO ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT OF THE TRANSITION 
PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 27.2(b) OF THE SCM AGREEMENT 
FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS 
  
 The SCM Committee shall follow the proce dures set forth below in respect of the 
continuation of extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  ("SCM Article 27.4") of 
the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement  for certain programmes, identified 
in the Annex.
21  
 
1. Mechanism for continuation of extension 
 
(a) A Member that wishes to seek a continuation, for calendar year 2008, of the 
extension under SCM Article 27.4 for a progr amme listed in the Annex, shall submit 
a request to that effect to the SCM Comm ittee not later than 3 September 2007.  The 
request also shall include a reference to the WTO document containing the corresponding updating notification covering calendar year 2006, which the Member shall have submitted to the SCM Committee pursuant to 1(d) of G/SCM/39.
22   
(b) Not later than 26 October 2007, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions, for calendar year  2008, for programmes listed in the Annex 
in respect of which requests have been s ubmitted pursuant to 1(a) and for which the 
Committee has verified, in its annual review conducted pursuant to G/SCM/3923, that 
the transparency and standstill requireme nts under G/SCM/39 were fulfilled during 
2006.   
(c) As provided for in SCM Article 27.4, the continuation of extensions by the 
SCM Committee pursuant to these procedures shall be subject to annual reviews in 
the form of consultations between th e Committee and the Members receiving 
continuations of extensions.  These annual re views shall be conducted on the basis of 
annual updating notifications from the Members in question, as referred to in 2(a).  
The purpose of the annual reviews shall be to verify that the transparency and standstill requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.   
(d) During the period 2008-2012, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions pursuant to these procedures , subject to verification through 
annual reviews as provided for in 1(c) that the transparency and standstill 
requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.
24  The "last authorized period" 
referred to in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall not extend beyond 
31 December 2013, and the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last 
sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall end not later than 31 December 2015.   
                                                      
21 The programmes eligible for continuations of extensions under these procedures are programmes 
providing export subsidies in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under SCM Article 27.4 for calendar 
year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.   
22 At the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2007, these Members were reminded to submit 
their updating notifications by 30 June 2007.   
23 The procedures in G/SCM/39 shall cease to be effec tive upon completion of this  2007 annual review.   
24 This extension mechanism shall cease to be effec tive upon completion in 2012  of the annual review 
by the Committee to continue the extensions for calendar y ear 2013, such that there will be no basis for requests 
for extension beyond those foreseen in this Decision.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 38  
 
  (e) A Member receiving a continuation of an ex tension under these procedures shall take, 
from 1 January 2008, the necessary internal steps with a view to eliminating export 
subsidies under the programme before the end of the final two-year phase-out period 
provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4.  These steps shall include 
consultations with relevant government  bodies and organisations and any necessary 
technical and/or legal assessments.  In addition, from 1 January 2008 and in no case 
later than 31 December 2009, the Member shall notify each beneficiary under the programme indicating that no export subsidies within the meaning of SCM Article 3.1(a) will be granted or  maintained beyond the end of calendar 
year 2015.   
(f) A Member receiving a continuation of an  extension under these procedures shall 
provide, for transparency purposes, an action plan for eliminating export subsidies under the programme, as an integral pa rt of the annual updating notification 
submitted for the annual review  to be conducted in 2010.
25  As part of this review, the 
SCM Committee shall undertake a mid-period assessment of each programme for 
which it has continued an extension under these procedures.  During this mid-period 
assessment, the SCM Committee shall take st ock of the steps undertaken as of that 
point by the notifying Member pursuant to  1(e), and shall discuss the action plan 
provided by the Member.   
(g) A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures may 
request the WTO Secretariat to provide technical assistance for eliminating export 
subsidies under the programme.   
2. Transparency  
 
(a) The annual updating notifications shall fo llow the agreed format for subsidy 
notifications under SCM Article 25 (found in  G/SCM/6/Rev.1).  Beginning with the 
updating notifications covering calendar y ear 2008, notifying Members also shall 
provide information regarding the actions they  have taken pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).   
(b) During the annual reviews by the SCM Committee referred to in 1(c), notifying 
Members can be requested by other Me mbers to provide additional detail and 
clarification with a view to maintaining tran sparency in respect of the scope, coverage 
and intensity of benefits (the "favour ability") of the programmes in question26 and the 
form of the subsidies provided thereunder;   and in respect of the actions taken 
pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).  Any informati on provided in response to such requests 
shall be considered part of the notified information.   
(c) A Member receiving a continuation of an  extension under these procedures shall 
ensure transparency in respect of the fi nal two-year phase-out period provided for in 
the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 by submitting updating notifications under 
paragraph 2(a), which shall be subject to annual review by the Committee.   
                                                      
25 The action plan shall indicate how the Member intends to eliminate export subsidies under the 
programme not later than the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4, including information as to legisla tive changes, administrative amendments and/or other 
procedures as may be necessary, and whether any of these actions have been undertaken  or are in the process of 
being undertaken, including how the individual beneficiaries have been notified pursuant to 1(e). 
26 The scope, coverage and intensity of benefits of the programmes in question will be determined on 
the basis of the legal instruments underlying the programmes.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  3. Standstill 
 
(a) Through the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in 
SCM Article 27.4, the programmes for whic h extensions are continued under these 
procedures shall not be modified so as to ma ke them more favourable than they were 
as at 1 September 2001, as specified in the notified information previously submitted 
pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.  The continuation of an expiring programme without modification shall not be deemed to violate standstill.   
(b) The verification of standstill in respect of  the scope, coverage and intensity of 
benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes shall be based on the notified 
information referred to in 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) and 3(a).   
4. Product graduation on the basis of export competitiveness 
 
Notwithstanding these procedures, Articles 27.5 and 27.6 shall apply in respect of export 
subsidies for which extensions are con tinued pursuant to these procedures.   
5. Members listed in Annex VII(b) which reserved rights pursuant to the procedures in 
G/SCM/39 
 
(a) This Decision does not prejudge rights of Annex VII Members. 
(b) If, during the period 2008-2015, the per capita  GNP of a Member that reserved rights 
under paragraph 6(b) of G/SCM/39
27 reaches the level provided for in Annex VII(b) 
of the SCM Agreement  such that the Member is no lo nger included in Annex VII(b), 
that Member shall be able to make use of these procedures as from the date at which 
its per capita GNP reaches that level and for the remainder of that period.  The effective date for the standstill requirement re ferred to in 3(a) shall be the year in 
which that Member's GNP per capita reach es the level provided for in Annex VII(b) 
such that it is no longer in cluded in Annex VII(b).   
                                                     
 
27 The Members that reserved rights, and the programmes in respect of which these rights were 
reserved, are identified in documents G/SCM/N/74/ BOL & Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/74/HND, G/SCM/N/74/KEN, 
and G/SCM/N/74/LKA. 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 40  
 
  ANNEX 
  
LIST OF PROGRAMMES ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS  
UNDER THE PROCEDURES
28, AND DOCUMENT REFERENCES FOR THE  
EXTENSION DECISIONS BY THE SCM COMMITTEE  
COVERING CALENDAR YEAR 2007  
  Antigua & Barbuda  
• Fiscal Incentive Act Cap 172 (December 1975) (G/SCM/50/Add.4) 
• Free Trade and Processing Zone Act No. 12 of 1994 (G/SCM/51/Add.4) 
 
Barbados  
• Fiscal Incentive Programme (G/SCM/52/Add.4) 
• Export Allowance (G/SCM/53/Add.4) 
• Research & Development Allowance (G/SCM/54/Add.4) 
• International Business Incentives (G/SCM/55/Add.4) 
• Societies With Restricted Liability (G/SCM/56/Add.4) 
 
Belize  
• Fiscal Incentives Act (G/SCM/57/Add.4) 
• Export Processing Zone Act (G/SCM/58/Add. 4) 
• Commercial Free Zone Act (G/SCM/59/Add.4) 
• Conditional Duty Exemptions Facility under Treaty of Chaguaramas (G/SCM/60/Add.4) 
 
Costa Rica  
• Free Zone Regime (G/SCM/61/Add.4) 
• Inward Processing Regime (G/SCM/62/Add.4) 
 
Dominica  
• Fiscal Incentives Programme (G/SCM/63/Add.4) 
                                                     
 
 28 Programmes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under 
SCM Article 27.4 for calendar year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.   It is recalled that the 
eligibility criteria in G/SCM/39 on the basis of which the original extension decisions pursuant to those 
procedures (for calendar year 2003) were taken for the listed programmes were as follows (footnotes omitted):   
"Programmes eligible for extension pursuant to these procedures, and for which Members shall 
therefore grant extensions for calenda r year 2003 [...], are export subsidy programmes (i) in the form of 
full or partial exemptions from import duties and intern al taxes, (ii) which were in existence not later 
than 1 September 2001, and (iii) which are provided  by developing country Members (iv) whose share 
of world merchandise export trade was not greater than 0.10 per cent, (v) whose total Gross National 
Income ("GNI") for the year 2000 as published by the World Bank was at or below US$20 billion, 
(vi) and who are otherwise eligible to request an exte nsion pursuant to Article 27.4, and (vii) in respect 
of which these procedures are followed."   
It is further recalled that, in respect of the above eligibility criteria, G/SCM/39 also provided that:   
"The criteria set forth in these procedures are solely  and strictly for the purpose of determining whether 
Members are eligible to invoke thes e procedures.  Members of the Co mmittee agree that these criteria 
have no precedential value or relevance, dire ct or indirect, for an y other purpose."    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
  Dominican Republic  
• Law No. 8-90 to "Promote the Establishment of New Free Zones and Expand Existing Ones"  
(G/SCM/64/Add.4) 
 
El Salvador  
• Export Processing Zones and Marketing Act, as amended (G/SCM/65/Add.4) 
 
Fiji 
• Short-Term Export Profit Deduction (G/SCM/66/Add.4) 
• Export Processing Factories/Export Processing Zones Scheme (G/SCM/67/Add.4) 
• The Income Tax Act (Film Making and Audio Visual Incentive Amendment Decree 2000) 
(G/SCM/68/Add.4) 
 
Grenada  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 41 of 1974 (G/SCM/69/Add.4) 
• Statutory Rules and Orders No. 37 of 1999 (G/SCM/70/Add.4) 
• Qualified Enterprises Act No. 18 of 1978 (G/SCM/71/Add.4) 
 
Guatemala  
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duti es and Other Import Taxes for Companies 
under Special Customs Regimes (G/SCM/72/Add.4) 
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production 
Process Relating to Activities of Managers and Users of Free Zones (G/SCM/73/Add.4) 
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production 
Process of Commercial and Industrial Enterprises Operating in the Industrial and Free Trade 
Zone (G/SCM/74/Add.4) 
 
Jamaica  
• Export Industry Encouragement Act (G/SCM/75/Add.4) 
• Jamaica Export Free Zone Act (G/SCM/76/Add.4) 
• Foreign Sales Corporation Act (G/SCM/77/Add.4) 
• Industrial Incentives (Factory Construction) Act (G/SCM/78/Add.4) 
 
Jordan  
• Partial or Total Exemption from Income Tax of Profits Generated from Exports under Law 
No. 57 of 1985, as amended (G/SCM/79/Add.4) 
 
Mauritius  
• Export Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/80/Add.4) 
• Pioneer Status Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/81/Add.4) 
• Export Promotion (G/SCM/82/Add.4) 
• Freeport Scheme (G/SCM/83/Add.4) 
 
Panama  
• Official Industry Register (G/SCM/84/Add.4 
• Export Processing Zones (G/SCM/85/Add.4) 
 
Papua New Guinea  
• Section 45 of the Income Tax (G/SCM/86/Add.4) WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 42  
 
  St. Kitts and Nevis  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 17 of 1974 (G/SCM/90/Add.4) 
 
St. Lucia  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 15 of 1974 (G/SCM/87/Add.4) 
• Free Zone Act, No. 10 of 1999 (G/SCM/88/Add.4) 
• Micro and Small Scale Business Enterprises Ac t, No. 19 of 1998 (G/SCM/89/Add.4) 
 
St. Vincent & Grenadines  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 5 of 19 82, as amended (G/SCM/91/Add.4) 
 
Uruguay  
• Automotive Industry Export Promotion Regime  (G/SCM/92/Add.4) 
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
  IX. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON TRADE FACILITATION 
1. Regional Approaches to Trade Facilitation:  Enquiry Points - TN/TF/W/129/Rev.1 
(21 July 2006) 
 Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Domini ca, Fiji, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, 
the Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 
 
 PARAGRAPHS 5 TO 10 
 
 Proposal  
 
5. The proposals currently on the table recognize the importance and usefulness of 
enquiry points for providing information to traders and/or Member States the trade regulation of a country.  This submission by the co-sponsors seeks explicit recognition that a regional enquiry point for a group of countries shall al so be accepted and recognized as fulfilling any 
obligation under these provisions.  Notwithstandi ng the proposal, it should be recognized that 
the responsibility for ensuring that the informati on is available to the regional enquiry point 
will remain with the individual WTO Members concerned. 
6. The following language is proposed for in clusion in any draft text which could be 
prepared in the future: 
"Establish enquiry points at the national level or in the case of 
SVEs/developing countries involved in a Customs Union/RTA/FTA, 
the option of the establishment of enquiry points at the regional level, 
to provide relevant information on trade procedures to trade." 
"Members and the WTO, within its competence, shall provide 
technical and financial assistance on mutually agreed terms to SVEs/developing countries to support the establishment, modification 
and maintenance of these national and/or regional enquiry points." 
 Special and Differential Treatment
 
 
7. SVEs/Developing countries/LDCs should have longer time periods to implement any 
requirement on enquiry points.  
8. It should be understood that individual members of the Customs Union /RTA should 
maintain a national enquiry point if it is w ithin their ability to do so but existence of a 
regional enquiry point would preclude the oblig ation to maintain a national enquiry point. 
 Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Requirements  
 
9. The regional approach lends itself to more  effective and targeted forms of technical 
assistance and capacity building and much of the assistance would be directed towards a 
mechanism which would be utilized by all members of the Customs Union/RTA/FTA.  To 
fully exploit the benefits of  a regional approach capacity building and technical assistance 
may also be channelled to the individual members.  
10. The specific forms of technical assistance and capacity building required at both the 
national and regional level would include the following: WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 44  
 
  • Audit and compilation of regional trade-related legislation in an electronically exploitable 
format (to be carried out at the national level). 
• Updating model legislation which could ultim ately lead to a harmonising of a regional 
data base. 
• Creation of a regional database with a view to harmonizing and updating the legislation. 
• Provision of translations in Spanish, Dutch, French and English. 
• Provision of security for data transmitted by  the internet from the national governments to 
the regional mechanism as well as the provision of backup data systems.  
• Review and revamping, where necessary, of national and regional trade policy 
communication plans to incorporate all levels of traders (commercial and informal) into 
the information forwarded to the regional mechanism. 
• Creation of websites and the development of interactive software on trade regulation to 
ensure that the national legislation and tr ade policies can be fed into the regional 
mechanism. 
• Training for customs and trade officials in internet publication website data entry, 
monitoring and update of informati on and dissemination of information. 
• Infrastructure for the establishment/conversion/designation of a regional body or for a 
department within a regional body to carry ou t the functions of a regional enquiry point. 
This could include physical construction or  modification of a facility; the provision of 
computer systems;  the hiring of additional dedicated staff, etc. 
 
 Discussions 
 
• Negotiating Group on Trade facilitation Regular meeting of 24-26 July 2006, introduction 
of the proposal. (TN/TF/M/15) 
• The proposal has also been discussed at all informal meetings of the Trade Facilitation 
Negotiating Group.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
  X. AID FOR TRADE TASK FORCE 
1. Aid for Trade - WT/AFT/W/18 (15 June 2006) 
 Proponent :  Barbados 
 
 III. SCOPE FOR AFT   
 9. In general, AFT should cover the following:   
• Trade Policy and Regulations, (i.e. regional and multilateral negotiations, 
standards, implementation of trade ag reements, trade policy and planning);  
 
• Trade-Related Infrastructure (i.e. transport and storage, communications, energy, 
trade facilitation, etc);  
 
• Trade Development (i.e. trade  promoti on strategy and implementation, market 
analysis and development);  
 
• Productive Supply-Side Constraints, (i.e. banking and financial services, research 
and development and innovation; busin ess and other services, agriculture, 
forestry, fishing, industry and mining, tourism etc.);  and  
 
• Trade Adjustment (abnormal adjustment  resulting from severe adverse trade 
shocks). 
  IV. PRIORITY AREAS FOR INTERVENTION 
 
 A. TRADE
 POLICY  AND  REGULATIONS 
  B. 
TRADE ADJUSTMENT  
  C. 
TRADE -RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE  
 
 D. TRADE DEVELOPMENT  
  E. 
PRODUCTIVE SUPPLY -SIDE CONSTRAINTS  
 
V. A PRIVATE SECTOR AID FOR TRADE PROGRAMME 
  29. A special effort should be made to ensu re the involvement of the private sectors in 
both developed and developing countries a nd to connect them to each other. 
 
 30. The scope of a Private Sector Aid Fo r Trade Programme should relate to activities 
capable of supporting private sector efforts to e xport.  The identification of gaps in current 
Official Development Assistance in the trade-related field would be an appropriate starting point. 
  31. The delivery and monitoring of Private Sector AFT programmes should be vested in 
an organization agreed between interested mu ltilateral and bilateral donor agencies and sector 
specific representative institutions on a country basis or, where appropriate, on a regional 
basis. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 46  
 
   
 32. AFT participants should aim for a feasibl e programme of assistance that is based on 
professional diagnostic studies and needs assess ments and on arrangements for a monitoring 
system using mutually agreed benchmarks.  Improving coherence and coordination of action 
among multiple donors should also be part of this approach.  
 
 33. An existing international trade-related organization that has a comparative advantage 
in this field, and also enjoys the confidence of developing countries, should be given responsibility for managing the programme.  On the recipient side, the executing agency could be the agreed representative ins titution such as regional development banks. 
 
 VI. VOLUME AND NATURE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT   A. 
MOBILIZING ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES  
 
 34. According to the paragraph 57 mandate , additional funding is required.  Between 
1994-2004, development aid has been decreasing as debt relief became an increasing part of 
ODA.  It would be important therefore that curre nt aid budgets are not depleted in order to 
support AFT but rather additional resources w ould be tapped to add "new money" to ODA 
budgets.  
 
 35. The pledges so far for 2010 are promising but the challenge remains to realize 
additionality.  In this respect, it is essential that in finalizing commitments to the provision of 
these resources that long-term sustainability of  the AFT process and predictability in the 
provision of funds are assured. 
 
 B. NATURE  OF AFT  FINANCIAL  SUPPORT 
 
36. In order to avoid an increase in the debt burden of developing countries, particularly 
LDCs and small, vulnerable de veloping countries, aid-for-tra de financial support should be 
provided primarily in the form of grants.  However, for certain high cost physical infrastructure projects, these could be co-fina nced with long-term concessional loans from 
other multilateral financial ins titutions (e.g., regional deve lopment banks and the World 
Bank).  Such loans should be on terms no less favourable than those of IDA or IFAD. 
  37. Funding should also not involve any burdensome conditionalities.  The latter should 
be limited to monitoring and governance. 
 
 38. With regard to the financial instrument s, there is as much a need for budgetary 
support that is available for sector-wide approaches on a multi-annual basis, as for specific "project financing".  Budgetary support in situations of fiscal imbalance and 
balance-of-payments deficit ensures macroec onomic stability through quicker disbursement 
and a focus on the areas of adjustment most in n eed.  It facilitates the development of projects 
by ensuring the correct macroeconomic environment. 
  C. 
DURATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF AFT FUNDING  
  39. The problems related to supply-side capac ity and trade-related infrastructure must be 
tackled on a sustainable basis.  This essentially implies that projects must be developed and 
implemented over many years and be funded on a multi-year basis.  AFT funds would 
therefore have to be replenished periodically acco rding to an agreed schedule, and procedures 
would have to be established to ensure this. 
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
   40. Access to these funds would also have  to be guaranteed and predictable, and to 
achieve this purpose, some agreement between  donors and recipients would be needed to 
provide such security.  In this context, some c onsideration could be given to strengthening the 
role of multilateral sources in the provision of the a dditional resources. 
 
 VII. MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE OF AFT  
  A. 
MONITORING MECHANISM  
  41. The role of the WTO in monitoring and evaluating performance of AFT programmes 
should be paramount, and this responsibility c ould be assigned to its highest Council and its 
subsidiary bodies (particularly the Committ ee on Trade and Development).  The Joint 
WTO/OECD Database on TRTA/CB already constitu tes a useful monitoring tool which could 
be further enhanced by improved supervision of  the collection and processing of information. 
In addition, a mechanism would be needed to assess the impact of AFT.  Monitoring should 
permit the involvement of recipients, donors and other interested parties. 
  B. 
GOVERNANCE MECHANISM  
 
42. The wide range of bilateral, regional and multilateral mechanisms now in operation 
would suggest that the AFT governance mechan ism should first explore the comparative 
advantage of existing institutions and seek to improve functioning where gaps exists.  
  43. Several forms of assistance suffer from insufficient resources as well as a lack of 
coordination between the institutions managi ng the projects.  These weaknesses should be 
avoided in AFT. 
 
 44. There is need for credible mechanis ms for delivering AFT and ways of improving 
existing national and regional mechanisms mu st be found.  Regional development banks 
should play a key role in this area. 
  45. Any governance structure should ensure WTO involvement as well as provide for 
adequate coordination where gaps have been ob served.  The effective participation of WTO 
Members or their representatives – which agai n could be the regional development banks 
should be assured.  It should also draw into  the process international and regional financial 
agencies, the private sector, bilateral donors along w ith experts, and other interested parties.  
There should be an agreed administrative frame work with agreed principles of management 
and allocation of funds. Institutiona l conditionalities should be avoided. 
  C. 
ELIGIBILITY  
 
46. In terms of country coverage, AFT s hould address the relevant needs of all WTO 
developing-country Members with priority to LDCs, SVEs and acceding small developing 
countries. 
  VIII. PROCESSES TO IDENTIFY TRADE-RELATED NEEDS AT THE INDIVIDUAL 
COUNTRY LEVEL 
 
47. In view of the wide variation in countr y situations, a country-specific approach to 
needs assessment will be necessary in order to identify both the priority needs of individual 
countries and the additional assistance required in e ach case.  This effort should take into 
account the needs of the private sector.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.1 
Page 48  
 
  48. For countries that are part of a regiona l integration scheme and would wish their 
national approaches to be complimented by a regional needs assessment approach, the latter 
should also be undertaken. 
49. Aid for trade should allow policy flexib ilities and national ownership as mandated in 
the Paris Declaration of June 2005.  Adopted at the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness 
(March 2005) the Paris Declaration on Aid E ffectiveness has been prepared with broad 
participation from development practitioners , through a process coordinated by the 
High-Level Forum Steering Committee.  The decl aration outlines a set of joint commitments 
and targets for governments and multilateral donor s to reach over the next five years. 
 
__________